Debate Brady vs Belichick?

[Rob0729]

That's a more of a product of the era as well. Outside of Peyton's 2004 season, even Peyton Manning himself didn't have gaudy stats as we like to think back then.

This is the 2003 passing leaders chart
View attachment 29625

Look at how Brady's touchdowns, interceptions, etc. are within range of Peyton Manning's, despite not having his weapons. (No Corey Dillon to alter the defensive coverage, for instance). He had Deion Branch who has good, and Troy Brown who was solid, but that was kind of it.

And he had 5 game winning drives, which was 2nd in the league. And was runner-up for MVP. (Priest holmes should have won that year though).

It was a credit to the defense that it was so awesome that in most of those five game winning drives, they put Brady in a position to win those games. Because without the defense, Brady wouldn't have been in most of those postions. Brady isn't winning a game going into overtime at 13-13 without a great defense.

And Manning played significantly better than Brady based on these stats. He isn't in range of Manning. I never said Brady was bad. He was a good QB in 2003. He just wasn't elite.

Why can't people just accept that Brady wasn't the GOAT from day one and he grew as a QB. He started out as a game manager who could make big plays and drives at times to a good QB and eventually got to be elite. It just took 4-5 years to do it.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Montana didn’t retire a Niner, Farve didn’t retire a Packer, Unitas didn’t retire a Colt, Manning didn’t retire a Colt, Namath didn’t retire a Jet. It happens. Brady was with us 20 years. That’s longer than any other great QB was with a team

Only a fan base such as ours would find fault with a coach/GM who kept the same QB in the same system, won 6 Super Bowls and paid $235m not here for a 21st season.

Perspective.....

 

[PatsWSB47]

It was a credit to the defense that it was so awesome that in most of those five game winning drives, they put Brady in a position to win those games. Because without the defense, Brady wouldn't have been in most of those postions. Brady isn't winning a game going into overtime at 13-13 without a great defense.

And Manning played significantly better than Brady based on these stats. He isn't in range of Manning. Look at the TD and INT percentages and YPA. They are not close. I never said Brady was bad. He was a good QB in 2003. He just wasn't elite.

Why can't people just accept that Brady wasn't the GOAT from day one and he grew as a QB. He started out as a game manager who could make big plays and drives at times to a good QB and eventually got to be elite. It just took 4-5 years to do it.

What made Brady wasn't gaudy stats from day one, it was gaudy clutch even as a game manager. Manning with all his stats could never match Brady when it counted the most. Percentage this, YPA that. The big plays and drives in the most crucial times is what made Brady greater than Manning even then. I'll never forget what Terry Bradshaw said in 2004. He said "Tom is already in the hall of fame. Now he just needs the career". Indeed. I think you and I kind of agree, we just have a different definition of what makes elite.

 

[Rob0729]

Only a fan base such as ours would find fault with a coach/GM who kept the same QB in the same system, won 6 Super Bowls and paid $235m not here for a 21st season.

Perspective.....

Yeah, I don't get it. All of the sudden it is all Brady and Belichick is the same coach who coached the Browns. Brady is doing well, but he has a ****load of talent around him which he wouldn't have here. And I would argue that if Belichick was coaching the Bucs right now, they would be something like 14-1 or 13-2 going into the last week and the odds on favorite to get to the Super Bowl.

Let's face it. If the Pats kept Brady, they weren't coming close to winning the Super Bowl this year. They MIGHT have made the playoffs, but they would have had one and done written all over them. That is why I am not upset about the Pats letting him walk. I figured this is probably the best year to blow it up because of COVID. Who knows if Brady hits the wall completely after this season or not. Favre went from MVP candidate to crap in one season.

 

[Rob0729]

What made Brady wasn't gaudy stats from day one, it was gaudy clutch even as a game manager. Manning with all his stats could never match Brady when it counted the most. Percentage this, YPA that. The big plays and drives in the most crucial times is what made Brady greater than Manning even then. I'll never forget what Terry Bradshaw said in 2004. He said "Tom is already in the hall of fame. Now he just needs the career". Indeed. I think you and I kind of agree, we just have a different definition of what makes elite.

That made him a good QB, not an elite one. He grew into being elite.

And it doesn't change the fact that the defense carried this team in 2003. You aren't going to win many games scoring 9-12 points on offense and the Pats won all three they had in 2003. Why? Because of the defense. Again, the offense was efficient, but other than a handful of games and , it wasn't anything special that year.

A clutch QB cannot win unless they are put in positions to be clutch. That is my point. Without that defense, the Pats would have lost a third to half the games they won probably by multiple scores. A game manager who is clutch with a crappy defense is just a subpar QB. They never have the opportunity to be clutch.

I am not saying Brady didn't play a big role in 2001 or 2003, but when you look at the season as a whole the majority of the credit goes to the defense and Belichick, not Brady. In the other Super Bowl years, you can make the argument that Brady is the biggest reason the Pats won those years.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Brady pulling away by a LARGE margin.

 

[Kdo5]

What made Brady wasn't gaudy stats from day one, it was gaudy clutch even as a game manager. Manning with all his stats could never match Brady when it counted the most. Percentage this, YPA that. The big plays and drives in the most crucial times is what made Brady greater than Manning even then. I'll never forget what Terry Bradshaw said in 2004. He said "Tom is already in the hall of fame. Now he just needs the career". Indeed. I think you and I kind of agree, we just have a different definition of what makes elite.

TB12 was first ballot hall of fame by his fifth season in the league. In terms of being a “game manager”, that is a Jacoby Brissett with the Colts, not Tom Brady leading us to clutch victories and a SB winning drive against the Rams.

Brady was a top 5 QB by the end of 2002. Tom being a game manager for early stretches in his career is ********. Belichick does not win a single championship without Brady.

 

[IllegalContact]

doesn't matter......the pats weren't winning another SB with Brady, and he didn't want to be here anyway....betcha he thinks his NE fans are suckers

 

[amfootball]

Brady pulling away by a LARGE margin.

As he should be. What a debacle of a season for Bill and he is still throwing flowers at Cam's feet.

 

[amfootball]

Only a fan base such as ours would find fault with a coach/GM who kept the same QB in the same system, won 6 Super Bowls and paid $235m not here for a 21st season.

Perspective.....

Sports will always be a "what have you done for me lately" business. I think it is unfair (ungrateful) too but that is the nature of the beast.

 

[lancerman]

Sports will always be a "what have you done for me lately" business. I think it is unfair (ungrateful) too but that is the nature of the beast.

At the same time if any person in sports earned a several year mulligan for a rebuild its Bill.

 

[Kdo5]

At the same time if any person in sports earned a several year mulligan for a rebuild its Bill.

A one year mulligan, I’d say. He’s gotta make some substantial improvements next season. I’m talking 10-6 with inside track to a wildcard spot. I’d find that a reasonable expectation with an abundance of cap space and a high draft pick, potentially even as high as #10-12.

8-8 or worse with no QB plan again should be cause for pressure to be put on him. I like to believe that will not be the case.

 

[Sam Bam Cunningham]

Was it ever really a debate???
Did Harry Sinden or Bobby Orr make the Bruins?
Did KC Jones or Larry Bird make the Celtics?
Did Dave Dombrowski or Mookie Betts make the red sox?
Did Patrick Mahomes or Andy Reid make the Chiefs


Much much easier to find a smart GM/Coach than the GOAT QB

 

[amfootball]

At the same time if any person in sports earned a several year mulligan for a rebuild its Bill.

Eh. That sounds nice in theory. I mean Brady deserved to finish as a Pat too. It just does not work that way in sports. No one gets that much of a leash in a pure production business that is worth billions.

 

[PatsWSB47]

That made him a good QB, not an elite one. He grew into being elite.

And it doesn't change the fact that the defense carried this team in 2003. You aren't going to win many games scoring 9-12 points on offense and the Pats won all three they had in 2003. Why? Because of the defense. Again, the offense was efficient, but other than a handful of games and , it wasn't anything special that year.

A clutch QB cannot win unless they are put in positions to be clutch. That is my point. Without that defense, the Pats would have lost a third to half the games they won probably by multiple scores. A game manager who is clutch with a crappy defense is just a subpar QB. They never have the opportunity to be clutch.

I am not saying Brady didn't play a big role in 2001 or 2003, but when you look at the season as a whole the majority of the credit goes to the defense and Belichick, not Brady. In the other Super Bowl years, you can make the argument that Brady is the biggest reason the Pats won those years.

You can take your elite Manning. You can take the if this and if that. You can have the opportunity this and opportunity that. You can have the without this and without that. Look it. The elites all had their chances and opportunities. We've seen them blow those opportunities more times than not. None of them equaled what Brady did with his. We dont actually know what someone else would do with a hypothetical. I can only go on what actually occured, not what would have or wouldn't have occurred with ifs and buts.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

That made him a good QB, not an elite one. He grew into being elite.

And it doesn't change the fact that the defense carried this team in 2003. You aren't going to win many games scoring 9-12 points on offense and the Pats won all three they had in 2003. Why? Because of the defense. Again, the offense was efficient, but other than a handful of games and , it wasn't anything special that year.

A clutch QB cannot win unless they are put in positions to be clutch. That is my point. Without that defense, the Pats would have lost a third to half the games they won probably by multiple scores. A game manager who is clutch with a crappy defense is just a subpar QB. They never have the opportunity to be clutch.

I am not saying Brady didn't play a big role in 2001 or 2003, but when you look at the season as a whole the majority of the credit goes to the defense and Belichick, not Brady. In the other Super Bowl years, you can make the argument that Brady is the biggest reason the Pats won those years.

Looking at those 9-12 offense point total games misses a lot of context. The Patriots often played conservative, mistake free football with an emphasis on field position and running the ball. Why? Because they knew the defense would hold up. It’s like the Super Bowl that year against Carolina. When the offense needed to answer the call, they did. I have little doubt that the offense would have scored a lot more points throughout the season with a lesser defense, including those games.

When Brady finishes third in MVP voting and is widely regarded as one of the best QBs in football, that means a lot more than looking at his stats and point totals in hindsight. He was absolutely considered an elite QB in 2003, coming off that remarkable run in 2001 and leading the league in TD passes on 2002.

Take a look at these two charts from 2003. The Patriots were (well, Brady was) indeed efficient and didn’t turn the ball over much despite scoring enough points in 14 of 16 games while having a terrible running game.





One more chart from 2003. These are the top 16 scoring offenses in the NFL for points scored. Notice that of the top 16, the Patriots are dead last in rushing yards/attempt. But in addition to that, only three other teams averaged less than 4.0 YPA. Which other three? The Indianapolis Colts, who had Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, and Edgerrin James; the St. Louis Rams, who had Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, and Marshall Faulk; and the Tennessee Titans, who had Derrick Mason (not that he’s a superstar but had 12,000 receiving yards in his career.)



Epilogue: Charlie Weis turned out to be a mediocre offensive coach, despite the narrative that he was the genius behind the team’s success in 2003; Deion Branch was a huge bust in Seattle; Antowain Smith was replaced the next year by Corey Dillon; none of the Patriots offensive linemen made the pro bowl. Neither David Givens, Bethel Johnson, or David Patten did anything outside of New England.

 

[Rob0729]

Looking at those 9-12 offense point total games misses a lot of context. The Patriots often played conservative, mistake free football with an emphasis on field position and running the ball. Why? Because they knew the defense would hold up. It’s like the Super Bowl that year against Carolina. When the offense needed to answer the call, they did. I have little doubt that the offense would have scored a lot more points throughout the season with a lesser defense, including those games.

When Brady finishes third in MVP voting and is widely regarded as one of the best QBs in football, that means a lot more than looking at his stats and point totals in hindsight. He was absolutely considered an elite QB in 2003, coming off that remarkable run in 2001 and leading the league in TD passes on 2002.

Take a look at these two charts from 2003. The Patriots were (well, Brady was) indeed efficient and didn’t turn the ball over much despite scoring enough points in 14 of 16 games while having a terrible running game.

View attachment 29628

View attachment 29629

One more chart from 2003. These are the top 16 scoring offenses in the NFL for points scored. Notice that of the top 16, the Patriots are dead last in rushing yards/attempt. But in addition to that, only three other teams averaged less than 4.0 YPA. Which other three? The Indianapolis Colts, who had Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, and Edgerrin James; the St. Louis Rams, who had Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, and Marshall Faulk; and the Tennessee Titans, who had Derrick Mason (not that he’s a superstar but had 12,000 receiving yards in his career.)

View attachment 29630

Epilogue: Charlie Weis turned out to be a mediocre offensive coach, despite the narrative that he was the genius behind the team’s success in 2003; Deion Branch was a huge bust in Seattle; Antowain Smith was replaced the next year by Corey Dillon; none of the Patriots offensive linemen made the pro bowl. Neither David Givens, Bethel Johnson, or David Patten did anything outside of New England.

You are arguing exactly what I was arguing. In 2003, the Pats won on defense and the offense was asked to be efficient and rarely having to win games. Yes, the offense answered the call when they needed to, but they didn't need to all that often.

But we agree with the only point that matters in this discussion, the Pats won on 2003 more on its defense than Brady. We can argue how good Brady was in 2003, but it doesn't change the original point and the point to this discussion.

 

[Rob0729]

You can take your elite Manning. You can take the if this and if that. You can have the opportunity this and opportunity that. You can have the without this and without that. Look it. The elites all had their chances and opportunities. We've seen them blow those opportunities more times than not. None of them equaled what Brady did with his. We dont actually know what someone else would do with a hypothetical. I can only go on what actually occured, not what would have or wouldn't have occurred with ifs and buts.

Again, I am not saying I want anyone else besides Brady. It just doesn't change the fact that the Pats were built and coached in 2003 to be a team that won on defense and the offense was asked to be efficient and mistake free. To say Brady was more important than Belichick or the defense in 2003 is revisionist history. That year, they were a defensive oriented football team. And they won more on defense than offense.

 

[Rob0729]

TB12 was first ballot hall of fame by his fifth season in the league. In terms of being a “game manager”, that is a Jacoby Brissett with the Colts, not Tom Brady leading us to clutch victories and a SB winning drive against the Rams.

Brady was a top 5 QB by the end of 2002. Tom being a game manager for early stretches in his career is ********. Belichick does not win a single championship without Brady.

And Brady doesn't win at least the first three championships without Belichick. It isn't Brady's game plan to defend Marshall Faulk that is in the Hall of Fame. Brady didn't intercept Manning four times in the AFCCG in January of 2004 because he was mugging the Colts' receivers off the line.

They both needed each other especially in the early Super Bowls. I give Belichick more credit in the first two than Brady when we are talking the season as a whole to get to and win a Super Bowl.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

You are arguing exactly what I was arguing. In 2003, the Pats won on defense and the offense was asked to be efficient and rarely having to win games. Yes, the offense answered the call when they needed to, but they didn't need to all that often.

But we agree with the only point that matters in this discussion, the Pats won on 2003 more on its defense than Brady. We can argue how good Brady was in 2003, but it doesn't change the original point and the point to this discussion.

We’re not arguing the same point, though.

I’m arguing that the Patriots offense absolutely should not have been efficient or competent enough to go 14-2 with any defense based on an anemic running game. I looked up the worst YPA since 2001 for a SB Champ, and it’s the 2003 Patriots at 3.4.

With that supporting cast on offense, a lot of teams in that era would still be around .500 with an average QB. Three other teams in 2003 had defenses similar to the Pats in points allowed, the Dolphins (10-6), Bills (6-10), Cowboys (10-6), and Bucs (7-9). Contrary to the narrative, dominant defenses in that era were much more common and didn’t guarantee much. Defenses were overall better.

So the elite defense was helpful for Brady to win, sure, but look also at enormous handicap on offense. No notable star players and a really crappy running game... a maybe average offensive line.

Was the defense a better overall unit than the offense? Absolutely. But who was by far the most valuable player on the team? Do you really think this team team sniffs a Super Bowl with an average QB, a run game under 3.5 ypc and lacking playmakers? An elite defense and a terrible offense...that’s a recipe for 9-7 in 2003 with an average QB. The reason for 17-2 isn’t that hard to figure out.

Kind of like nowadays when it looked like the 2019 offense was “so bad” and now we see just how horrible the unit is with an average QB instead of Brady,